On 1/5/2013 4:32 PM, Virgil wrote:> But mathematics is NOT a science. Its truths and values are in no way> dependent on physical experimentation or scientific observations of the> physical world

I would actually disagree with this. The meaning of theword "science" changed significantly in the nineteenthcentury as "scientist" became a profession.

Modern logic discusses belief in terms of propositionalattitudes. If you read Aristotle, there is a slightlydifferent organization. There are three books: PriorAnalytics, Posterior Analytics, and Topics.

Prior Analytics discusses what is shared betweenPosterior Analytics and Topics. Posterior Analyticsconcerns itself primarily with the nature of demonstrativescience. Topics concerns itself primarily with thenature of dialectical argument (rhetoric). The latteris the use of the deductive calculus arguing frombelief. The former is the use of the deductive calculusarguing from principles (assumptions and definitions).

From my perspective, mathematics is the science.

As for what you are referring to as science, BertrandRussell once observed that all of the "soft" scienceswere trying to ground themselves in physics at thesame time that physics was grounding itself inmathematically-defined entities.

Have you ever asked yourself what the topologyof general relativity should look like if thetime cones were to be taken as the basis of thetopology? My bet is on a non-metrizable Moorespace.

How does one even get a physicist (or a WMythologist)to even see the possibility of something that cannotbe measured relative to the rigid motions of aplatinum bar in Paris?

But do not misunderstand me. There is anastounding theoretical coherence to our currentphysicalist understanding of the universe. And,without measurement, it is difficult to see howthat could have been accomplished.